Alabama Media Group gets into the digital subscription business

Two weeks ago, USA Today announced that visitors to its website would have to pay a monthly fee to access the best of its content, becoming the last national daily newspaper to stop offering all of its work for free online.

This is a trend among daily newspapers of all sizes. One study from 2019 (latest I could find) reported that 76% of the U.S. dailies surveyed had a “paywall” of some kind on their websites. That number was 60% just two years prior.

In May 2020, when the Alabama Media Group was seeking voluntary payments to support its journalism, I offered the belief that AMG probably would put most of its digital content behind a paywall someday, as the majority of the websites of parent company Advance Local have done with at least some of their work since then. But that hasn’t happened with AMG (full disclosure: I used to work there). Full access to AL.com remains free.

What has happened is that, for the first time, AMG is selling some exclusive digital content.

The company this year launched “The Lede” in each of its major markets – Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile. (“Lede” is a journalist’s weird spelling of the first paragraph of a story.)

The Lede is a daily digital product delivered by email or accessible by computer and mobile app. It contains news enterprise stories, recent breaking stories, features, sports stories, commentaries, obits, games and puzzles. Statewide topics appear in all three markets, but the top stories, usually emphasizing a local issue, are distinct.

“The Lede is a way for us to bring back a daily touchpoint for local coverage,” AMG Vice President of Content Kelly Scott wrote in an email. “…The Lede allows us to go deeper on topics that matter to residents in each community.”

On Monday, for instance, The Lede cover story for Mobile was about oil and gas lease money for the Gulf Coast. The Huntsville cover focused on the city’s transit system as a transportation alternative. Birmingham carried a cover story about age trends in Jefferson County.

From my reading of The Lede for Birmingham over a few weeks, the cover story and a few other items are exclusive to The Lede each day, meaning they aren’t available for free on AL.com. The majority of the content can be found on the site. But industry research indicates that many readers like the value of having news delivered directly to them in organized fashion instead of searching on sites that are ever-changing and often user unfriendly.

Cost of The Lede is $9.99 per month, a typical rate for such a product. It’s also included with the purchase of a Birmingham, Huntsville or Mobile print subscription.

News organizations are notorious for creating new products simply by demanding more work from existing personnel or by taking personnel from existing products. But AMG has invested in The Lede. It added a reporter dedicated to the new venture in each market. It also hired Kevin Scarbinsky as an exclusive, all-markets freelance sports columnist. (My former colleague is a high-value asset, in my opinion.)

While The Lede obviously carries some stories that otherwise would appear on AL.com, the website is essentially unaffected. AMG and other news media companies that still want digital advertising as one of their significant revenue sources know that requiring payment for content – whether by moving it to a new paid product or by putting up a site paywall – will decrease the web traffic that advertisers want.

There’s another issue here. Paywalls deprive people who can’t or don’t want to pay of vital civic information. It’s true that, except for a decade or so of free online journalism at the start of this century, news has always had a price. And the study I mentioned earlier says concern about paywalls and informed citizens is “overblown for now,” mainly because a slight majority of the 212 outlets it surveyed across seven countries remain free. But where paywalls exist, I think it’s a valid concern.

Scott is aware of this issue. She says local news that readers need for civic participation will remain on AL.com. “We believe it’s important from an equity standpoint and to make sure citizens have access to the reporting they need to be civically engaged where they live,” she said.

Charging for news helps to financially support the continuation of that news. It’s the increasingly necessary trend. But hallelujahs to any outlet that can give it to their community for free.

 

Publication frequency keeps dropping nationally

While we’re talking about AMG and Advance Local, I came across some interesting facts about the publication frequency of U.S. newspapers. Back in 2012, Advance changed The Birmingham News, The Huntsville Times and The Mobile Press-Register from daily publication to three days a week. (It also reduced frequency of other properties at other times, with the first being Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 2009.) The question then was whether this was a foresightful survival strategy that other companies would copy, or the short-sighted, greed-motivated actions of an outlier.

A decade later, 40 of the 100 largest circulation papers in the country deliver a print edition six or fewer times a week, according to a report released three weeks ago by Northwestern University professor Penny Abernathy. Of those 40, 11 publish a print edition one or two or times a week. The Tampa Bay Times, Salt Lake Tribune and the Arkansas Democrat Gazette are examples. Many smaller dailies have also reduced frequency. It’s a trend that began with the recession of 2008, the report says.

Every market has its own peculiarities, but these facts suggest to me that most other news companies to this point have maintained greater faith in the economics of print – or more tolerance for falling numbers – than Advance did. But for business trends, a decade is not long enough to draw conclusions. I anticipate a continuing loss of print days until some unpredictable point in time when newspapers are gone.

Sick and tired of all the bad news? You're not alone

“I can’t even.”

That was a common remark on social media in the wake of discovery that a mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois, left a 2-year-old boy orphaned. He was found wandering in the street. “Are Mommy and Daddy coming soon?” he later asked his grandfather.

I can’t even.

Of course, what’s the unspoken part of that sentence?

“I can’t even comprehend something so awful.”

“I can’t even imagine what life will be like for him.”

“I can’t even believe we live in a society where that could happen.”

All of the above.

And for some people: “I can’t even bring myself to read the news these days.”

It’s bad out there: COVID, the Ukraine war, mass killings, political insanity, add your own. Many people decide they just don’t want to read or watch it anymore. They engage in “news avoidance.”

According to a Reuters Institute survey released last month, 42% of U.S. respondents said they often or sometimes actively avoid the news. Of those, 49% said they did so because consuming news “had a negative effect on their mood.”

Other popular reasons, among all respondents across six continents, were too much news about politics and COVID (43%) and getting “worn out” by the amount of news (29%).

A study published in the academic journal Digital Journalism in 2022 found that in the U.S., “burn-out or exhaustion related to news consumption was mostly due to the political atmosphere after the presidential election in 2016.”

It added, more broadly, that “interviewees expressed the news being ‘too much,’ referring to the excess of negative (mood) the news was producing, feeling like it was more than they could handle – intolerable, even. Media’s tendency to focus on negative news seems to be one of the main factors that helps to explain news avoidance.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

News organizations obviously don’t want people tuning them out, but what to do about this?

One good suggestion is to focus on solutions to the problems that create bad news. Report on ideas and actions that have been shown to work, perhaps somewhere else in the world, or that at least offer some hope. Unfortunately, listening to decision makers deny common-sense solutions can be infuriating, as well. I, for instance, am a steadfast news avoider whenever Mitch McConnell begins to talk about mass shootings.

Some balancing of content is a good idea, too. That means looking for stories that can inspire and uplift. There are heroes in the world and they’re newsworthy. I used to scoff at newsrooms that formalize and label “good news” content because often the topic choices are unexceptional and boosterish. I’m less of a skeptic today.

One idea that the news media don’t need to consider: Downplaying the bad news. Yeah, I’m sick of all of it, too, but reality is reality. We can talk about the harm of sensationalizing, but resolving issues starts with awareness, attention and, yes, some degree of disgust. We don’t need to avoid that.